You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Breaking: Iraq Guards Intercept Forged Ballots From Iran
2005-12-14
on Drudge - more coming
IRAQI BORDER GUARDS SEIZE FORGED BALLOTS // Iraqi border police seized tanker truck Tuesday night that had just crossed from Iran filled with thousands of forged ballots... MORE...

NYT story, requires registration...
Less than two days before nationwide elections, the Iraqi border police seized a tanker on Tuesday that had just crossed from Iran filled with thousands of forged ballots, an official at the Interior Ministry said. The tanker was seized in the evening by agents with the American-trained border protection force at the Iraqi town of Badra, after crossing at Munthirya on the Iraqi border, the official said. According to the Iraqi official, the border police found several thousand partly completed ballots inside.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the Iranian truck driver told the police under interrogation that at least three other trucks filled with ballots had crossed from Iran at different spots along the border. The official, who did not attend the interrogation, said he did not know where the driver was headed, or what he intended to do with the ballots.

The seizure of the truck comes at a delicate time in Iran's relations with both Iraq and the United States. The American government has said Iranian agents are deeply involved in trying to influence events in Iraq, by funneling money to Shiite political parties and by arming and training many of the illegal militias that are bedeviling the country. Agents of the Iranian government are believed to be supporting the two main Shiite political parties here - the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa Party -with money and other assistance. Both parties support a strong role for Islam in the Iraqi state; however, compared with the Iranian government itself, which is a strict theocracy, the Iraqi version is relatively moderate.
Posted by:Frank G

#52  Agree with Frank. NO boot on the ground in Iran. Just pound them with air power. They want the 7th century, I think we should oblige them.
Posted by: SR-71   2005-12-14 21:07  

#51  C-Low - then for a decap strike just hit the mosques on Friday.
Posted by: 3dc   2005-12-14 21:04  

#50  Whaddaya talkin' about? Look at they way Amahandjob is alienating jsut about everyone but the MadMullahs. Give him another year; he'll be irrelevant! Toast!

Yeah, so I'm worried about the nuke thingy, too....
Posted by: Bobby   2005-12-14 21:01  

#49  no invasion: decap strikes and air power to destroy their power. Take out the MM's and all their possessions - all their assets - all their sources of power - the almighty Basij barracks, the RG barracks, every airfield and port. Then step back and say: "you want more?" The revolution JUST MIGHT start then
Posted by: Frank G   2005-12-14 19:52  

#48  That would me my guess from what I gather 20% of the muslim pop in general are terrorist leaning. In Iran I would say that 20% has been codled propogandized by the Revolutionary guard are going to be Jihadi ready not just leaning with a large chunk of fence sitters on the leaning side.

My memory did not serve me well on the Suicide bombers I guessed a half mill way off more like 50k however that was in Sept 05
hatip Stradegypage
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200597231227.asp
hatip world net
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45148


Bottom line we are going to have to deal with Iran either now or later. The later is going to extremly bloody if not radioactive today will be bloody hard slogin but better than the alterantive. I think Democracy will go well in Iran but we still are going to have a huge number of radicals in Iran and thier terrrorist allies across the world to deal with. I dont think we can avoid at min massive air campain on Iran, they cannot be allowed to achieve nukes even primitive ones and a revolution can only be made easier by decapitation constant air strikes and at will destruction of gov police, military, and leadership. I say gut em with air power hold the pressure then see what comes out reformers lets talk or radicals JDAM, next.
Posted by: C-Low   2005-12-14 18:10  

#47  Same percentage, 20%, as the Sunni's who controlled Iraq.
Posted by: RG   2005-12-14 16:14  

#46  I understand that Iranians are not technically Arab they are Persian with some Euro Greek Alexander blood like the Kurds the Afghan's Assyrians ect... either way that part of the world has no history of "people revolution", besides if we bet on a revolution and it dont pan out like I suspect we are screwed if we hedge our bets and support but not depend or even expect such if it works out we will be sittin pretty if not plan A. Plan for worst case and failure is nearly impossible and especially in the world we live in today were the media is literally blowing everything out of porportion any even the most optimistic goals that are short will be touted as failure while its better to have the losses laid out overstated in the begining that way anything short disaster will can be played as better than expected super success. Its just PR

On a Iranian occupation not being as bad as Iraq is setting yourself up for failure big time. Yes Iranian persian people are more familure with democracy and they were once stauch US allies rather westernized but remember they have been 40+yrs of propoganda brainwashing. The Iranian gov is experienced in terrorist tatics and the Revolutionary guard is preparing for what they know is coming our invasion. They know damm well we are going to walk on their conventional forces and thier only hope is in the occupation war of attrition. The Revolutionary guard has recruited something like a half million Mrtyrs say only 10% were for real thats still 50k stong. Also Iran has agents world wide + the terrorist groups they support that will run diversion and punishment attacks across the globe from Lebanon, Iraq, EU, Russia, Asia and I imagine some in the US too.

All in all I think the Iranians have alot of potential I have met some here in the states and if they didnt tell you would never know the differnce. Iran's people enlarge I think would support a more western lifestyle and Democracy but thier current leadership and the Mullahs have heavily propogandized them, you gotta assume at least 20% radicalized population.
Posted by: C-Low   2005-12-14 15:46  

#45  This NEW YORK TIMES STORY is not credible. The source was false. NYT, the flagship of the liberal cesspool of LIES, LIES and MORE LIES is pulling another Mary Mapes to try to discredit the Iraqi Election by lieing, saying thousands of ballots sent in by Iran, NOT TRUE.

http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/
Posted by: RG   2005-12-14 15:20  

#44  Like it or not, this is going to be a long war. The major battleground is Washington DC. For better or worse, kinetic action can only take place shortly after an election when the executive has unquestioned authority. That is why I suspect Israel will get to handle the Iranian nukes, when they are ripe and Bush, as a lame duck, whill handle Syria after the 2006 elections. He will put the squeeze on the Democrats in the run up to the election on the issue of dealing with Syria. If he wins (trunks gain seats in the House), then it's so long pencil neck. If he loses, nothing happens. In any event non-nuclear Iran is left for a later administration.

This is not a bad strategy. The president isolates the Iranians. Clients are picked off one by one. The Europeans are given more of the responsibility for diplomacy and get enough egg on their faces to make a souffle. The Iranian populace sees Iraq rising from the dust and leaving them behind. The only thing to fear from Iran is nukes. And that is handled by the Israelis. And that is why they are going to have an election.
Posted by: Glereth Thavish7738   2005-12-14 15:18  

#43  A significant post-op advantage in Iran is the fact that they have gone through numerous elections. Admittedly, this is not a real democracy when the mullahs have final say over all and can throw out candidates whom they don't like. Nevertheless, it is a far more significant stab at the democratic process than the Arab countries have. My point is that the people are familiar with the process. They will be able to adapt to a post-mullah environment far more quickly than in Iraq.
Posted by: remoteman   2005-12-14 14:54  

#42  How to deal with Iran.

This is a tricky one, warmonger that I am I've never been satified with any of the options I've seen. That includes waiting around.

If Iran turns fascist Islam takes a huge, huge, hit. If we conquer Iran we end up locked up in another long slog with no real winnable end-game. WE've got to push for the revolution.

I think the best is to up our propoganda to support independence movements in Baluchistan, Kurdistan, and Arabistan regions of Iran. Drop in one shot pistols for any potential Mullah killers and give it a year to see what happens.

If there are any serious revolts we back them, at least verbally but possibly with air power in some way (preventing Iranian helicopters from getting involved or cratering a road to prevent anti-riot troops from getting involved).

We also consider using troops to support an independent Kurdistan (in Iran) and Arabistan if the option opens up and they throw out the Persians.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2005-12-14 14:50  

#41  For the ten thousandth time, Iran is not Arab

Not the majority, no - the majority (and the Persian language) are IndoEuropean.

However, there is a substantial Arab minority in the southwest and a Kurdish minority in the northwest (which is also IndoEuropean, but scarcely buddies w/ the Mullahs) and some of whom speak Arabic. Worth keeping in mind .....
Posted by: lotp   2005-12-14 14:48  

#40  Not only is Iran not Arab but they sort of had a peoples revolution in 79.
Posted by: Chomoting Omaigum5503   2005-12-14 14:42  

#39  NYT story is a ruse.. no such event happened...gee...didn't see that coming.LOL
Posted by: Floluting Clomble4242   2005-12-14 14:42  

#38  Still, it would be wonderful to see a few nukes going up the Moolahs tail pipe.

..we talkin enema or high colonic?
Posted by: Red Dog   2005-12-14 14:31  

#37  Steve, I hate it when people use logic. Anywho, there are many Mossad and US SF all over Iran right now. Mapping nuke sites and propping up anti-Moolah forces. So, Sun Tsu principles are being applied as we converse.

Still, it would be wonderful to see a few nukes going up the Moolahs tail pipe.
Posted by: Captain America   2005-12-14 13:57  

#36  the mullarcky also benefits from a lack of unity within the opposition

Some of this lack of unity is due to the continuing hope by some, in the family of the late Shah, that they could restore their family dynasty; a big and fairly easy step could be made if the Pahlevi family would, as a group, simply renounce any royal aspirations.

Unfortunately this isn't the only barrier to cross but it would help if we could cross this one.
Posted by: mhw   2005-12-14 13:52  

#35  "I dont buy into the "people revolution" in Iran the Arabs have never through history had such a thing "

For the ten thousandth time, Iran is not Arab.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2005-12-14 13:27  

#34  There will be very little insurgency in Iran once it falls. It's home to one of the two main sets of puppet masters, so the financing will be cut off. You can't run an insurgency without financing. What there is will come from the Soddies and the Gulf States. And they'll be next on the list, once Iran falls.
Posted by: Fred   2005-12-14 13:00  

#33  Btw, I don't think we'd have the same level of insurgency in Iran as Iraq... The Iranians will look at Iraq and say we don't want to go through that, they'll also see the elections occuring and realize that the quicker they accept the quicker they get democracy and the quicker we'd leave.

Iran not having a Syria and another Iran equivalent on it's borders will help also. They're surrounded by iraq and Afghanistan... 2 countries with US military on site in mass.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2005-12-14 12:40  

#32  Steve, normally I'd agree with you but we don't have time. If they get nukes it's gonna be a disaster.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2005-12-14 12:36  

#31  I dont buy into the "people revolution" in Iran the Arabs have never through history had such a thing Dictators and assasination military coups but no "people revolutions" like we have in our history in the West. Not to mention you got to remember that the majority may dislike the Mullah gov but I would remind that the majority of Americans would probably say they dont like politicians here dont mean if Russia invaded they would not fight. The Mullahs also have a strong core group who are fully propogandized and Jihadi ready and have no problem easily dominating the opposition that is a mix of kids who want to party, Democrats, Capatalist, Communist, Anarchist, Secularlist the point is they are divided.

I think a full scale air assualt then securing the Kurds area and spreading from their.
Posted by: C-Low   2005-12-14 12:01  

#30  Gee, and here I thought all the roads to Syria and Iran were closed for the elections.

Must be a bitch driving those 18-wheelers across the sand and shit, huh?
Posted by: mojo   2005-12-14 11:39  

#29  It will turn a country in which 60 - 75% of the people are sympathetic to us completely against us.

That seems a bit high and way too optimistic. If your numbers were correct, Al-Jazeera wouldn't be as popular as it is over there. Ask any Iranian about current events in the ME and they will most likely quote Al-Jazeera. At least, that's been my experience.
Posted by: Rafael   2005-12-14 11:33  

#28  Crawford

Iran phase in the WOT will be long and bloody I dont see any problem with the initial invasion conquest its the occupation. That occupation will be long and real bloody by letting the Iranian pres move first we will put the biggest threat to the US war effort the LLL's and the Dums in a hard position (I still think they will cry but not as loud). NATO being obligated to our side by defence pact's will I doubt see German French peace keepers in Iran or even NATO but they could take Afghanistan and Iraq over letting US concentrate on Iran not to mention the money. NATO almost came with US on Iraq a joint effort of Germany & France kept that from happening in this case Germany is now Merkevel who is not going to go out of her way to f*ck the US, Chirac France would be isolated and Chirac's numbers are beyond the toilet in the drain. Also their is alot of NATO that isnt France like Poland, Romania, Austria, Britian, Italy, Turkey, Ukraine soon, these all would send men in and the money would be a big boost they paid for Gulf War 1 bankroll.

Personally I think we could decapitate the regime, crumble the military, take targets of opportunity as they pop up, maybe take some strategic land targets, and just hold a no fly zone with continued attacks at will until someone steps up we can deal with.
Posted by: C-Low   2005-12-14 11:01  

#27  Isn't the Iran-Iraq border (*ahem*) closed to prevent this sort of thing?

Iraq-Syria border was closed. Don't know if the others are.
Posted by: Pappy   2005-12-14 11:00  

#26  I have to disagree with OldSpook and .com.

Not with their desire to rid the world of the MadMullahs™.

Just with the method by which we do it.

We do not want to use military power. It will turn a country in which 60 - 75% of the people are sympathetic to us completely against us. A military strike will inevitably leave a few MadMullahs™ alive, and the country will rally around them.

Nope, nope, not good, nope.

Instead: we remember the teachings of Sun Tsu. The best victory is one in which your opponent doesn't know he's been defeated, until he has been. The military option presented here is like beseiging a walled city 4,000 years ago, and we all know what Sun Tsu thought of that.

We instead use the indirect approach. We need to cultivate the disaffected, the ethnic leaders, the young, the people in Iran who are fed up with the MadMullahs™ but don't know how to go about changing things. We build from within and get the people of Iran to throw the bums out.

In short, we foment revolution. We did it once in Iran, we can do it again.

And we deny everything. Who, us? Pshaw.
Posted by: Steve White   2005-12-14 10:53  

#25  Iraqi Border Chief Says: It's News To Me!"
Posted by: doc   2005-12-14 10:45  

#24  Swap ballot boxes during the count. Easy if there are supporters infiltrated into the ministries, as we know there are.
Posted by: anon   2005-12-14 10:09  

#23  Probably the Mullarchy was trying something but its hard to believe they would try to move a truckload of ballots.

Not only do they face the problem of closed (or at least very restricted) borders but they would have to deal with the issue of how to distribute the ballots; how to get them past the various pollwatchers, how to prevent the post voting counts from noticing, say one voting station with 5 times too many votes.
Posted by: mhw   2005-12-14 09:53  

#22  Isn't the Iran-Iraq border (*ahem*) closed to prevent this sort of thing?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-12-14 09:46  

#21  It's hard to sort everything out, except what you hear W say with his own mouth. The rest is spin. That's why we've to the 'burg. This many eyes manage to sort the truth out pretty quickly. This is a dumb time to be running black psyops, so I'm inclined to believe, with an open mind.
Posted by: Spish Angaviling9106   2005-12-14 09:38  

#20  Iraq border chief could be telling the truth - the whole story could be a superb psy-op. Or he could be one of Iran's 'boys' trying to do some damage control. It is going to be hard to sort this one out.
Posted by: Glenmore   2005-12-14 09:35  

#19  "Iraq border chief denies forged ballots seized"

Reuters says not so. Who to believe? Reuters (bad) of NYT (delusional)?

(Link)

Link
Posted by: SR-71   2005-12-14 08:58  

#18  They want nukes, let's give them some.
Posted by: Captain America   2005-12-14 08:37  

#17  
You gotta figure this guy really beleives he is on a mission from Allah and the 11th Mahdi


Remember his line about being surrounded by a holy glow during his speech at the UN? That's exactly what he believes.

For the US it would be good becuase a attack would allow NATO by obligation to participate in the party


Fwance would again "opt out" of NATO, Germany would probably follow. They have too much at stake in trade deals to let a little thing like a sixty-year-old mutual defense pact get in the way.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-12-14 07:55  

#16  I have to agree -- a past-bedtime attack on barracks filled with sleeping Republican Guard troops could easily be done with GPS-programmed missiles of some sort. Even if we don't know about -- and get -- every one, the message would be clear and effective without any boots on the ground at all. Like Israel with regard to Iraq's, and now Iran's, nuclear program, it needn't be completely destroyed, merely set back a decade or two. After all, with the image of such destruction before their eyes, how many wannabe Iranian bully boys will choose to sign up with the IRG afterward?
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-12-14 07:27  

#15  Re #5: "Wow .com In due time in due time we dont have enough men to do the whole ME at once"
We don't need men. Fry 'em till they're well done and move along. They can be refried later if they still don't comprehend.
Posted by: Neutron Tom is Back!   2005-12-14 07:18  

#14  Probably funded by move-on.org. No matter how hard they try to stop democracy, it has taken hold and will win in the end. Lets hope they get all the trucks or the dems will say there is proof of cheating and slam the pres for this.
Posted by: 49 pan   2005-12-14 06:14  

#13  Iraqi border police seized tanker truck Tuesday night that had just crossed from Iran filled with thousands of forged ballots... MORE...

MORE: Tanker truck registered to the DNC, nothing to see here move along.


interns from the DNC.
Posted by: Red Dog   2005-12-14 04:22  

#12  Over and covert constant aggression by Iran must be answered. GWB do something that will make them fear us. They certainly don't now.

Sometimes some people just need killing. Now is such a time.
Posted by: Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu   2005-12-14 03:07  

#11  I'll suggest the solution is to cut off the money and that means taking Khuzestan, formerly known as Arabistan and henceforth known as the Republic of Rhumistan.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-12-14 02:02  

#10  Double posted somehow. Sorry bout that.
Posted by: Oldspook   2005-12-14 01:31  

#9  Every IRG barracks within 35 miles of the border shoul be immediately destroyed with a Time On Target at about 0400. Decimate Iran's "Waffen SS" units. We ahve arty, and with a lob, our GPS guided JDAMS can do shack those targets without violating airspace. Here comes the boom!
Posted by: Oldspook   2005-12-14 01:30  

#8  Every IRG barracks within 35 miles of the border shoul be immediately destroyed with a Time On Target at about 0400. Decimate Iran's "Waffen SS" units. We ahve arty, and with a lob, our GPS guided JDAMS can do shack those targets without violating airspace. Here comes the boom!
Posted by: Oldspook   2005-12-14 01:29  

#7  Truefully guys the Iranian pres is emotional and really beleives his own hype like good old Zark. I would not be surprised that if before the end of the year Iran attacked US first. You gotta figure this guy really beleives he is on a mission from Allah and the 11th Mahdi they will ensure success well at least until the US counter strike comes but this would be non PR which he has proven he has no problem with being non PR. For the US it would be good becuase a attack would allow NATO by obligation to participate in the party, with a Merkaval in Germany now Chirac/France (last I saw 3% wanted him to run again thats freekin insane how he doesnt get impeached amazes me with numbers like that) alone wont be able to hold the tide. Iran is a big country we are goin to need some non US boots on the ground in some large numbers for the occupation, we can handle the invasion and conquest ourselves.
Posted by: C-Low   2005-12-14 01:28  

#6  More guns; less butter.
Posted by: Gliting Omesing3251   2005-12-14 01:26  

#5  Wow .com In due time in due time we dont have enough men to do the whole ME at once, one phase at a time. Iraq wont be long now and Afghanistan I think soon will be turned over to NATO. I also think this may actually work out in our favor anyway not to mention if nessecary we will have a excuse to throw out alot of votes remember the other trucks. But Iran's day is coming besides I have been really enjoying watching the Iranian pres punk out the EU and all of thier diplomatic crapola which the Iranian pres just tells them to stick it and by the way we are going to wipe isreal off the map. The US just sits back laughing watcha gonna do now Elbardi EU I love it. They keep saying the world is losing patience whats the UN goin to do whats the EU goin to do, I want to see that point when they are going to have to just right thier in front of their people show everyone just how pussified they are and useless personally I cant wait. And they may suprise me and suddenly grow a sack (not holding my breath). In the mean time we secure the flanks Afghanistan and Iraq. I think late 06' or early 07' we will have a decapitation strike on Iran leadership, generals, command control, mullahs, pres ect..couple month air campain then a nice no fly zone from Iraq to Afghanistan, land invasion occupation very likly will be nessecary I just sereously doubt any arabs have the sack to rise up by themselves they never have in all thier history made such a movement at least one of the people.


This is a big deal. I bet this will really hurt the Dawa and the SCRI parties in Iraq the SCRI especially with thier recent bringing in old Sadr known Iranian toy tater and now this. Even the Iraqi Shia dont want none of being a proxy Iran or even a new oil revenue source. Even during the Iran/Iraq war the Shia made a up a huge portion of the Iraqi army.

Posted by: C-Low   2005-12-14 01:09  

#4  

Readthe story HERE!

Posted by: Doitnow   2005-12-14 01:00  

#3  Amen! Enough is enough already. The Iranians have essentially committed multiple acts of war against Iraq as well as against the United States. It's time to put an end to one more prong of the Axis of Evil.
Posted by: FOTSGreg   2005-12-14 00:53  

#2  What he said
Posted by: Captain America   2005-12-14 00:43  

#1  Ah, fuck it.

Bomb Tehran. And Qom.

Military shaped-charge IEDs, funding thousands of "insurgents", funding and arming Tater & The Tots, flooding the country with "pilgrims" who are about as religious as I am, funding Baby Asshat, funding the Leb assholes, funding the inflow from Syria of "foreign fighter" and arms, funding Hezbollah, funding the attack on the Khobar Towers, sheltering alQ asshats, building nukes, painting Death to America and Jooos on their little Muzzy Viagra Missiles, stuffing the ballot box, ad infinitum ad nauseum.

To fuck up the elections on a massive scale, after all that we've sacrificed to make them possible, just puts me over the top. And it should push Bush over, too. This actually matters, damnit.

Enuff. Fuck it.

We need a "buffer zone" on that border. Mebbe a 5 mile radiation zone - on the Iranian side - would do the trick. Whatever, these fuckers need to stopped - and go down. Hard.

How many cassus belli incidents do we need?

I'm there - fry 'em up.
Posted by: .com   2005-12-14 00:19  

00:00